That's the term that is used when abortion is used for the sole purpose of killing girls (gender selection) as opposed to killing any child with which the woman is pregnant. The latter is simply called feticide.
It's an interesting term. Don't you think?
I fail to see how it is any different than genocide. Only that the victims are younger and more defenceless with no legal representation or protection.
It does lead to some questions:
. Do we have names for those thousands and thousands of children who are aborted because they have Down's Syndrome, cleft palate or in some other way look different than most of us?
. What would we call it if we witnessed a man (abortionists are almost always men) tearing a six month old baby limb from limb until dead because she had a deformed leg, a wonky eye, a poorly performing heart or a short life expectancy? What would we call that?
. What would we call it if we witnessed a man killing a two month old baby because she had Down's Syndrome?
. What would we call it if we saw a man killing a girl who is thirty seconds old because he liked boys more?
. What would we call it if we saw a man online, killing someone and then dismembering that person's body? How about if it's in the doctor's office and he's doing it at the request of the mother? How about if he's sucking out the baby's brain because the mother changed her mind about having another child?
And that is why the term female feticide so interesting.
. The outrage is not because a human life is being destroyed.
. Any grief expressed is not on behalf of the baby being killed.
. Any law against killing the female child is not because a child's life is being terminated with malice aforethought.
No, the anger of female feticide is on behalf of the woman who didn't want the baby girl destroyed. If she did want to kill the baby, and millions of females are killed through “normal” abortion every year, then all would be well.
. In our schizophrenic society, killing the child because of genetic mutation or physical deformity is fine and dandy.
. In our schizophrenic society, killing the child because it isn't wanted is fine and dandy.
. For some reason we have decided that it's not fine and dandy because of gender selection.
What kind of person tells someone, “I'm going to kill you, I'm going to deny you life because you won't look like I think you should”?
Feticide. Accepted practice as long as you do it for socially accepted reasons.
wonderful post
ReplyDeleteWhat a terrible post... are you always that ignorant and/or blinded by your faith?
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of person tells someone, “I'm going to kill you, I'm going to deny you life because you won't look like I think you should”?
What kind of person talks to a fetus? What kind of person consider a fetus to be a person?
Or perhaps the issue can be seen from a different angle...
Everybody agrees that there is a time limit we should not cross when it comes to abortion, i.e. it is wrong to kill a fetus after a certain gestation period, or even worse, after a baby is born as you (awfully) suggested in this post.
Therefore, the question is:
Between the moment of conception and birth, where do you draw the line?
Well, I've got this coming up in a future post but try this:
ReplyDeletePick a person, any person. Go back one day and ask yourself, "Was this a human life yesterday?"
Keep doing that until you can answer with a definitive, "No." You'll find you've arrived at the day before conception.
Thanks for stopping by.
Interesting way to see the issue!
ReplyDelete...
Actually no, what I meant is: that's ridiculous... you are asking exactly the same question but the other way around... No wonder you are so illogical in your view of abortion when you are not even able to grasp the logical equivalence of two different questions.
Thanks for the pointless reply.
Why would you thank me for a reply that seems pointless?
ReplyDeleteHow about instead pointing out my mistake?
It's called sarcasm. It's when somebody says either the complete opposite of what they think or alter their thought for comical effect. If you would like to learn more about sarcasm, I highly recommend the book 'Sarcasm for Dummies' that you can find online at a very affordable price.
ReplyDeleteHint: that was mostly sarcastic.
One good reason to say 'thanks' however is because you said thakns for stopping by. That was nice. Thanks for the welcome should have been my response.
Your mistake was pointed to you in a very subtle manner. Here's the quote again since you missed it as part of the extremely long comment: you are asking exactly the same question but the other way around...
"It's called sarcasm. It's when somebody . . ."
ReplyDeleteMy experience as a counsellor is that sarcasm is something used by very angry and arrogant people.
=====
"you are asking exactly the same question but the other way around..."
And my reply is that human life begins at conception. Therefore there is no in between time that makes ending that life acceptable.
My experience as a counsellor is that sarcasm is something used by very angry and arrogant people.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion is noted.
human life begins at conception
Then your definition of 'human life' is as valid as saying that a cow is beef.
Plus, even if you are to say at conception, you are still not clear enough:
- Is it the moment the sperm touches the egg?
- Is it when the genetic material from the sperm gets inside the egg?
- Is it the moment the fertilized egg gets attached?
- Or perhaps you determine it in terms of cells... is 1 cell a human life? or 2, 16, 1024?
- Or perhaps you can point out on this graph where the human life begins exactly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Fertilization.png
Can't wait to get the wisdom from a counselor who have finally found a definite way to determine, without any doubt, when a human life begins. That's exciting!
How about you just tell me, yes or no, Are you okay with the extermination of girls, as long as it's done before a certain date?
ReplyDeleteDoes it make a difference to you if it's boys or children with physical disabilities or shortened life spans?
Yes?
No?
- Yes, societies who decide to selectively kill girls have good reasons to do so.
ReplyDelete- No, it does not make a difference if we can detect birth defect soon enough; we should wait for babies to be out of the womb before killing them to make sure we don't get rid of viable fetus.
- You are an irrational douchebag who is not able to stand by his statements on abortion when pressed.
Hint: only 1 of the 3 statements was truthful.
Like what? You mean the question about when does life begin. Seriously? You actually think that's when children are killed?
ReplyDeleteLet me see if you're capable of answering without sarcasm. Atheist Peter Singer says that a baby six months old is not too old for a woman to change her mind about being a mother and terminate (I'm sure an abortionist would be hired to do it for her) the life of her child. Any thoughts?
Like what? You mean the question about when does life begin. Seriously? You actually think that's when children are killed?
ReplyDeleteFor fuck sake, you're the one who says 'human life begins at conception' and then is not able to explain when exactly that would be nor why.
So yes, according to YOU that's when children are killed, because a child IS a human life. You are unable to explain why any sane human being with basic understanding of reproduction should agree with you.
Let me see if you're capable of answering without sarcasm. Atheist Peter Singer says that a baby six months old is not too old for a woman to change her mind about being a mother and terminate (I'm sure an abortionist would be hired to do it for her) the life of her child. Any thoughts?
Peter Singer is just as stupid and irrational as you.
I would love to see quotes in the proper context though. For some reason, after "discussing" abortion with you, I don't think anything you say can be taken at face value. You are too irrational for your interpretation to have any value.
Actually if you want a non-sarcastic answer regarding abortion, here's what I would say:
ReplyDelete- First tri-mester: OK, because it's not a viable fetus yet. It's just a bunch of cells together.
- Third tri-mester: NO, it's absurd and dangerous to even consider an abortion. It could be done for extreme cases when both the mom and fetus would surely die.
- In between? It's all about CONTEXT and to be treated CASE-by-CASE. I am no doctor so I would refer to one, or many, should I have to make such decision. I would read about the reliability of tests, psychological consequences, potential risks, chances to have other babies later, etc... I don't think it should be illegal for sure but it's not a black-or-white question DURING THESE 3 MONTHS.
Thank you. I appreciate the absence of snark.
ReplyDelete"First tri-mester: OK, because it's not a viable fetus yet."
Not viable? What does that mean? That it couldn't survive on it's own, like a child who is one minute old, one month old, one year old? That kind of viable?
=====
What I hear you saying is that abortion is okay as long as you do it with your eyes closed. As soon as there is an agenda beyond killing the child, like gender selection or weeding out the weak or different then it becomes iffy - not necessarily wrong just more complicated. But just your general, run of the mill ending a life should not be questioned. Yes?
=====
". . . and then is not able to explain when exactly that would be nor why."
I would say that human life begins when a unique DNA sequence is in place. Is that one cell or two?
I'm dedicating this week and maybe a couple days next week to this topic so I'll explain more in a future post.
I don't think it should be illegal either. Life can be difficult. People need help. On the other hand I am strongly pro choice - but the choice comes before conception, before a life has been created. There is one definite, natural and biologically intended outcome of sexual intercourse. That is the creation of new life. If we're going to be involved in that behaviour then we should be prepared for the consequences. Is that too much to ask of humans? It appears so.
Ok so now I do feel bad for having been so snarky because I did not know that somebody in the 21st century, with access to the internet, could be so ignorant...........................................
ReplyDeleteNot viable? What does that mean? That it couldn't survive on it's own, like a child who is one minute old, one month old, one year old? That kind of viable?
No, not that king of 'viable'.................
Before a certain gestation period, a baby cannot survive outside the mother's body, no matter how hard you try using artificial means such as incubators: it is not viable.
Thanks to medical advancements, the minimum gestation period gets shorten more and more. However, it is still physically impossible to make a 12-week old fetus live outside the womb. For that reason alone, abortion of such fetus is completely acceptable in my opinion. It's entirely up to the mother to decide if she wants to keep having this living thing inside of her or not. It is not a child, it is not a baby, it is not a human being............... It's more like an organ!
.......but it's not the full picture either:
What I hear you saying is that abortion is okay as long as you do it with your eyes closed.
No. It's actually the exact opposite. It's ALL ABOUT CONTEXT, so it's definitely with your two eyes wide open, or actually with a lot more eyes. I had even specified this regarding second tri-mester abortion:
"It's all about CONTEXT and to be treated CASE-by-CASE. I am no doctor so I would refer to one, or many, should I have to make such decision. I would read about the reliability of tests, psychological consequences, potential risks, chances to have other babies later, etc..."
..............but what you were talking about is more regarding selection though:
As soon as there is an agenda beyond killing the child, like gender selection or weeding out the weak or different then it becomes iffy - not necessarily wrong just more complicated. But just your general, run of the mill ending a life should not be questioned. Yes?
Again........... no! You cannot say that the 'general, run of the mill ending a life should not be questioned' because IT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. ALL THE TIME.
Therefore, there if a woman wants to have an abortion during the first tri-mester, there should be no reason for her to be forced ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. It's up to her. But does that mean that any reason is morally acceptable? Of course not! If a woman is able to know the sex of the fetus and get an abortion because it is a girl, then that's terrible. But why is it terrible? Not because of the abortion itself of course, but because it means that this potential mom lives in a society which is not in favor of sex equality. THAT is the real problem here.
What about potential birth defect then? Well now that's more complicated. Personnally I think it's a good thing if we can avoid birth of children who will suffer all their life; let's just get rid of the fetus and try again. The problem is that this can lead to a slippery slope where people start trying to fine-tune their baby. I mean wanting to have a blue-eyed baby for example should never be a good reason for an abortion. There is thus no easy answer for this one and it should be treated case-by-case in my opinion.
I would say that human life begins when a unique DNA sequence is in place. Is that one cell or two?
ReplyDeleteThat's one... and goes to show why your position is completely ridiculous. Why would a unique DNA sequence have any meaning at all? It's a completely random process.
Of course, in the context of a divine hand creating each of us individually it makes sense, but, sorry to inform you, that's not how biological organisms work: it is purely random. Offspring gets half their gene from their mom and half their genes from their dad. The half from the mom contains some genes from the grand-dad and some from the grand-mom, randomly. It's completely meaningless by itself.
Let's make it even more clear........ Take a random man and analyze its DNA. You will get two copies of each chromosome. Now for each chromosome, pick a copy of your choice. Repeat the same process with a women. You have now picked a full set of chromosome and BOOM! You just created a human life!
Wait, what? That's not a human life? But according to you, it is..... because that is exactly what reproduction is; a random selection of genes.
I'm dedicating this week and maybe a couple days next week to this topic so I'll explain more in a future post.
Hum.......... that made me go to more recent posts...... you have really twisted ideas that make you think that others have really twisted idea. It's really strange, I don't know how to deal with such irrationality; in person I would try but there not point here. You're just a random blogger after all.......... I am done with you.
"IT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. ALL THE TIME."
ReplyDeleteWhy? In your own words -
"it is still physically impossible to make a 12-week old fetus live outside the womb. For that reason alone, abortion of such fetus is completely acceptable in my opinion. It's entirely up to the mother to decide if she wants to keep having this living thing inside of her or not. It is not a child, it is not a baby, it is not a human being............... It's more like an organ!
Why should something that's "completely acceptable to kill" and "entirely up to the mother to kill" be questioned all the time?
=====
"But why is it terrible? Not because of the abortion itself of course, but because it means that this potential mom lives in a society which is not in favor of sex equality. THAT is the real problem here."
And that is exactly what I said in my post. It's not the taking of a child's life. Who cares about that? It's the mother who should be free to do what she wants with the body of someone else, the life of someone else, with her baby's life!
=====
"let's just get rid of the fetus and try again."
Ya, I wrote about people like you in yesterday's post. Just get rid of my children and try again. You would have risen to the top in Nazi regime.
=====
"I am done with you."
Thank you. I feel nauseated.
Haha, so funny and pathetic at the same time... If it took you 5 minutes just to fix some typos in your post, (you did not know that people can receive email updates as soon as you post???) I highly doubt that you had time to process my 2 posts and come up with an intelligent answer within 30-40 minutes. You clearly skim over it, not fully understanding the meaning of the sentences and assuming that you are oh so good at reading minds. You did mention you were a counselor after all...
ReplyDeleteThat's very dishonest.
Now, why comment again?
- Because you need another lesson in biology apparently.
- And because you made false accusations that deserve an answer.
- "IT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. ALL THE TIME."
- Why? In your own words
- It's entirely up to the mother to decide
- Why should something that's "completely acceptable to kill" and "entirely up to the mother to kill" be questioned all the time?
Because an abortion is not something trivial; it has consequences on the human body that are quite unpleasant I heard.
And more importantly, it is a DECISION, not some sort of motor reflex! No matter how long it's been, IT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. ALL THE TIME.
And that is exactly what I said in my post. It's not the taking of a child's life. Who cares about that? It's the mother who should be free to do what she wants with the body of someone else, the life of someone else, with her baby's life!
No child life is taken away by an abortion, because IT IS NOT A CHILD.
No body of someone else is taken away, because IT IS NOT A PERSON.
No baby life is taken away, because IT IS NOT A BABY.
Ya, I wrote about people like you in yesterday's post. Just get rid of my children and try again. You would have risen to the top in Nazi regime.
NOBODY WA NTS TO GET RID OF YOUR CHILDREN!
For fuck sake, no wonder you skipped over the DNA part and only reply to the part that triggers an emotional response. You are incapable of determining what a human life is, or not. It is completely meaningless to you. All you see is living people who would have not been there if they had been aborted. You are either suffering from some cognitive bias or purposely avoid the embarrassing part in order to support an anti-abortion agenda.
Use your brain for a minute or two... if a woman has an abortion and then 3 babies later on, while another does not have an abortion and struggle to raise that one child, why don't you blame the 2nd woman for having killed two children? Huh? Why don't you do that? Clearly, if she had had an abortion, she could have had more children, look, that other woman did it! Why not the anti-abortion lady?
Abortion does not kill people. Abortion HELPS people... when done properly, safely and in the proper context after careful evaluation. For people like you though, I now think that it should be illegal. Because people who are irrational like you are the one who go to the other extreme and use abortions as a contraceptive measure, and get like 8 abortions within a few years. These people are just as retarded as you, but for very different reasons obviously....